Treatment Outcomes of African American Buprenorphine Patients by Parole and Probation Status

Relapses in Illicit Drug Use Among Probationers: Results in a Risk Group of Public Health Services in Bavaria

Objective: We aimed to identify in this study time trends of relapses in the illicit consumption of narcotics in a special at-risk population of former drug users under a public health perspective. Methods: In a pooled dataset of 14 consecutive calendar years (2006-2019), the use of seven different narcotic substances was studied in 380 persons with a total of 2,928 urine samples which were analyzed using a valid marker system for narcotic residues. Results: During the entire observation period, the relapse rate for cannabinoids and opiates was the highest despite abstinence requirements. It was noticeable that the relapses across all narcotics groups occurred primarily during the first 3 years of the probation period (90%) with a decrease in illegal consumption during the following years of the observation period. Conclusion: Special attention should be paid to probationers at the beginning of the probation period to develop more effective prevention strategies for substance abstinence by all involved actors in public health services.

A Comparison of Marijuana Use Across Different Levels of Justice-Involved Populations

A large portion of the U.S. population is justice-involved, an important at-risk population with poor physical/mental health outcomes and increased rates of substance use. Using the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the current study assesses marijuana use across level of community-based justice involvement (i.e., arrest, probation, and parole) among adults. Given increasing rates of marijuana use and a relative lack of research, the current study addresses an important gap in the literature. Findings from logistic regression analysis show that adults who had been arrested or were on probation were more likely to use marijuana compared to adults with no justice involvement, while adults on parole were less likely to use marijuana than those on probation. This study offers evidence of differences in marijuana use across level of justice involvement, which may be attributable to other substance use behaviors, and has important implications for criminal justice practice.

Does incarceration influence patients' goals for opioid use disorder treatment? A qualitative study of buprenorphine treatment in jail

BACKGROUND

Correctional facilities increasingly offer medications for opioid use disorder (OUD), including buprenorphine. Nevertheless, retention in treatment post-incarceration is suboptimal and overdose mortality remains high. Our objectives were to understand how incarcerated patients viewed buprenorphine treatment and identify modifiable factors that influenced treatment continuation post-release.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 men receiving buprenorphine treatment in an urban jail. Interviews were audio recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using a grounded-theory approach. Team members constructed preliminary case memos from transcripts, and then interactively discussed themes within respective memos. We established participant 'typologies' by consensus.

RESULTS

Distinct typologies emerged based on participants' post-release treatment goals: (1) those who viewed buprenorphine treatment as a cure for OUD; (2) those who thought buprenorphine would help manage opioid-related problems; and (3) those who did not desire OUD treatment. Participants also described common social structural barriers to treatment continuation and community re-integration. Participants reported that post-release housing instability, unemployment, and negative interactions with parole contributed to opioid use relapse and re-incarceration.

CONCLUSION

Participants had different goals for post-release buprenorphine treatment continuation, but their prior experiences suggested that social structural issues would complicate these plans. Incarceration can intensify marginalization, which when combined with heightened legal supervision, reinforced cycles of release, relapse, and re-incarceration. Participants valued buprenorphine treatment, but other structural and policy changes will be necessary to reduce incarceration-related inequities in opioid overdose mortality.

HIV-Risk Behavior Among Adults with Opioid Use Disorder During 12 Months Following Pre-trial Detention: Results from a Randomized Trial of Methadone Treatment

This was a three group randomized clinical trial of interim methadone and patient navigation involving 225 pre-trial detainees with opioid use disorder in Baltimore. The HIV Risk Assessment Battery (RAB) was administered at baseline (in jail), and at 6 and 12 months post-release. Generalized linear mixed model analyses indicated the condition × time interaction effect failed to reach significance (ps > .05) for both the drug risk and sex risk subscale scores. Therefore, findings suggest that there were no intervention effects on drug or sex risk behaviors. However, increased use of cocaine at baseline was associated with increases in drug- (b = .04, SE = .02) and sex-risk (b = .01, SE = .003) behaviors. These results suggest that interventions targeting cocaine use among pre-trial detainees may serve as a means of reducing HIV risk associated with drug- and sex-risk behaviors.Clinical Trials Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02334215.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

BACKGROUND

This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.

Pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction in community corrections

Pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction with methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone has proven efficacy in reducing illicit opioid use. These treatments are under-utilized among opioid-addicted individuals on parole, probation, or in drug courts. This paper examines the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction of adults under community-based criminal justice supervision in the US. Compared to general populations, there are relatively few papers addressing the separate impact of pharmacotherapy on individuals under community supervision. Tentative conclusions can be drawn from the extant literature. Reasonable evidence exists that illicit opioid use and self-reported criminal behaviour decline after treatment entry, and that these outcomes are as favourable among individuals under criminal justice supervision as the general treatment population. Surprisingly, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the extent to which pharmacotherapy impacts the likelihood of arrest and incarceration among individuals under supervision. However, given the proven efficacy of these three medications in reducing illicit opioid use and the evidence that, in the general population, methadone and buprenorphine treatment are associated with reduction in overdose mortality, the use of all three pharmacotherapies among patients under criminal justice supervision should be expanded while more data are collected on their impact on arrest and incarceration.

Recent incarceration and buprenorphine maintenance treatment outcomes among human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder is a common cause of morbidity and mortality among people living with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS). Buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) is an effective means of therapy, but patients with recent criminal justice involvement may need more support during BMT than other patients. The authors hypothesized that recently incarcerated BMT patients who initiated treatment in primary care would have poorer treatment outcomes than those who were not recently incarcerated.

METHODS

Investigators analyzed data from a multisite cohort study of BMT integrated into HIV care. Patients were stratified by self-reported incarceration in the 30 days before initiation of BMT. The outcomes of interest were 6- and 12-month treatment retention and self-reported opioid use. Investigators used multivariable logistic regression and hierarchical linear model, respectively, to evaluate the association between recent incarceration and these outcomes while adjusting for potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

Among 305 BMT patients living with HIV/AIDS, 39 (13%) reported recent incarceration. Patients with recent incarceration (vs. without) were more likely to be homeless, unemployed, and previously diagnosed with mental illness. Recent incarceration was not significantly associated with differences in 6-month (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-1.98) and 12-month (OR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.27-1.18) treatment retention or in self-reported opioid use (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.51-1.92) after adjustment for potential confounding variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Those with incarceration in the 30 days prior to BMT initiation were more likely to be homeless, unemployed, and previously diagnosed with mental illness than those without recent incarceration. However, no significant difference in self-reported opioid use or 6-month or 12-month retention in treatment was detected between those with and without recent incarceration. Future studies should confirm these findings with larger sample sizes. Encouraging formerly incarcerated individuals with opioid use disorder to initiate evidence-based treatments, including BMT, should be part of efforts to confront the opioid addiction epidemic in the United States.

Criminal Charges Prior to and After Enrollment in Opioid Agonist Treatment: A Comparison of Methadone Maintenance and Office-based Buprenorphine

BACKGROUND

Entry into methadone maintenance is associated with a reduction in criminal activity; less is known about the effects of office-based buprenorphine.

OBJECTIVE

To compare criminal charges before and after enrollment in methadone maintenance or office-based buprenorphine.

METHODS

Subjects were opioid-dependent adults who initiated either methadone maintenance (n = 252) or office-based buprenorphine (n = 252) between 2003 and 2007. Medical records were reviewed to gather demographic data and a state-maintained web-based database to collect data on criminal charges. Overall charges and drug charges in the 2 years prior to and after treatment enrollment were compared. Multivariable analysis was used to examine risk factors for charges after treatment enrollment.

RESULTS

In the 2 years after enrolling in treatment, subjects receiving methadone had a significant decline in the proportion of subjects with any charges (49.6% vs. 32.5%, p < .001) or drug charges (25.0% vs. 17.5%, p = .015), as well as the mean number of cases (0.97 vs. 0.63, p = .002) and drug cases (0.38 vs. 0.23, p = .008), while those who initiated buprenorphine did not have significant changes in any of these measures. On multivariable analysis, the strongest predictor of criminal charges in the 2 years after treatment enrollment was prior charges (adjusted odds ratio 3.35, 95% confidence interval, 2.24-5.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Enrollment in office-based buprenorphine treatment did not appear to have the same beneficial effect on subsequent criminal charges as methadone maintenance. If this observation is replicated in other settings, it may have implications for matching individuals to these treatment options.

Community correctional agents' views of medication-assisted treatment: Examining their influence on treatment referrals and community supervision practices

BACKGROUND

Alcohol and opioid use disorders are common among adults under community supervision. Although several medications (medication-assisted treatment or MAT) are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved to treat such disorders, they are underutilized with this population despite established effectiveness at decreasing substance use. This paper examines how community correctional agents' understanding of addiction and views of MAT influence their professional actions regarding addiction medications.

METHODS

A total of 118 semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with community correctional agents taking part in the CJ-DATS MATICCE implementation study across 20 parole/probation offices in 9 US states. Using grounded theory methodology and an iterative analytic approach, issues of role perception, views of MAT, current treatment referral, and community supervision practices were explored.

RESULTS

Agents often had limited autonomy to make direct treatment referrals, regardless of their views of MAT, as they were required to follow court orders and their organization's policies and procedures. Within some organizations, community correctional agents held sufficient autonomy to make direct treatment referrals, with agents struggling to reconcile their desire to support their clients who needed MAT with concerns about the abuse potential of opioid agonist medications. Viewing MAT as a "treatment of last resort" was counterbalanced by the view that it was an effective evidence-based practice. Agents described how MAT impacted their ability to supervise clients and how their knowledge and understanding of MAT was directly influenced by watching their clients who were successful or unsuccessful on MAT. Even those agents who were more accepting of MAT were largely unsupportive of it long-term use.

CONCLUSIONS

Community correctional agents' views of MAT were influenced by their understanding of addiction as well as their experiences supervising clients receiving treatment with medications, but whether or not MAT referrals were made was not always within their control.